Jurors receive no benefit from serving

I was under the impression that jury duty is your duty and a privilege. Now I think it is more of an invasion of privacy and then some.

I was under the impression that jury duty is your duty and a privilege. Now I think it is more of an invasion of privacy and then some.

When a person is summoned for jury duty, summoned definitely is what it is. You are under a threat of possible fines or imprisonment if you refuse. You do not have a choice: We chose you, and you come or else.

My main objection is that jurors are not permitted access to all the information in a case. The word is suppressed. How can a jury possibly render an informed decision when information is withheld?

Another peeve: An attorney, either deliberately or accidentally, can divulge suppressed evidence. He just will instruct the jury to disregard it. How do you “unring” a bell? The assumption being that jurors are not smart enough to be entrusted with complete information in a case, but, by the same token, are expected to ignore relevant facts in the case.

There are acceptable reasons for exemptions from jury duty: only the reasons named by the powers that be. For example, medical exemption, which means your doctor is drawn into the scenario. He must reveal in a written form why you can’t serve. Isn’t that an invasion of privacy?

Should people who are not medically qualified be permitted to scrutinize your personal medical information?

Wouldn’t justice be served the best by selecting people who want to be jurors instead of those who are only there by force?

A possible solution would be to advertise for jurors. How about posting a sign on the courthouse saying, “Now accepting applications for jury duty.”

The powers that be could then process the applications and select a more “acceptable” jury pool.